Hopefully, between Russia and Israel, someone can sabotauge the armored vehicles enough so they are more of a hindrance than an aid to the jihaders.

Posted by: Dumbo at March 26, 2008 3:39 PM

Why in hell does this country want to give the palis any more weapons considering what they use them for?
Jeez our leaders are stupid.

Posted by: el greco at March 26, 2008 4:41 PM

Some Israeli leaders must be slow learners.

Posted by: MP at March 26, 2008 4:44 PM

Just asking...

Why can't the Israeli government see what is obvious to us, that Fatah is a sworn enemy, that the weapons will eventually be turned against Israelis and that Fatah will not honor any agreement it signs?

Why can't the Israelis learn from 15 years of Palestinian self-rule that nothing good can come from arming your enemies?

Why do they think Fatah terrorists will fight terrorism for them?

I know Barak is a lefty who tried hard to give away land that Israel needs for its security, but he is also a military man who has to be aware of the intelligence reports regarding what Arafat's men did and Abbas's men have been doing in making war against Israel, doesn't he?

Do folks like Barak, Livni and Olmert really believe that their strategy of arming and training Fatah will eventually lead to a better situation for Israelis, or do they feel that they must follow this course in order to please the US, UN and world opinion?

What can we do as American citizens to stop our government from either encouraging or enabling this dangerous policy? What can we do to help Israel understand the nature of its enemies?

Posted by: 4infidels at March 26, 2008 7:33 PM

I don't know if there is a person alive who has killed more jihadists than Ehud Barak. He even killed a bunch while dressed up as a woman (kinky!).

This does not put his judgment in any particular matter beyond beyond reproach, but it does provide evidence that he's neither squeamish not harbors illusions about "the religion of peace" which seem to characterize accomodators such as Olmert and the current occupants of the White House.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at March 26, 2008 8:02 PM

Ehud Barak has been a brave soldier, celebrated for his many exploits (not least when dressed as a woman in the middle of Beirut, on a mission not of mercy). But like that other brave soldier, Ariel Sharon, his very bravery, in the military mode, apparently is allowed to justify, in the minds of others, and possibly himself as well, his responsibility to take a much longer and deeper view of the situation, and what it is that Israel faces.

Barak was ready to concede the inconceivable and the unconcedable, but fortunately Arafat would not accept. That, however, he was ready to do so shows that he is not well-prepared, does not understand the nature of the threat that Israel will always have, but can contain if its leaders remain coldly aware of that threat, educate those they are suppposed to instruct and protect in the real, grim, but not at all hopeless situation that the impulse of Jihad presents, and understand that the mereticious Slow Jihadists of Fatah are not to be given weapons, or any power, not only because all such weapons have a way of falling into the hands of those who are in Hamas, but because the Slow Jihadists of Fatah are bad enough, dangerous enough.

Old dog, new tricks. Is Barak educable? Hard to tell. Perhaps some Israelis have a better sense of him. I can only gauge him from afar, and don't have much confidence in him, as I don't in most of Isael's leaders. Perhaps some visitor to this site knows something more encouraging. If so, post it here.

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2008 8:44 PM

"Old dog, new tricks. Is Barak educable? Hard to tell. Perhaps some Israelis have a better sense of him. I can only gauge him from afar, and don't have much confidence in him, as I don't in most of Isael's leaders. Perhaps some visitor to this site knows something more encouraging. If so, post it here."

Hugh, I don't know what to say. As a Jew and an American I can only guess at this self-inflicted insanity permeating the leadership, and venture to say that yes, the unteachable has met the unquenchable. I cannot wrap my head around the reasoning for this "suicide by decree" which, for all intent and purpose can bring about nothing than a hastening of the death of Israel. Is this what the people of Israel want, and more importantly, is this what they deserve? My heart goes to all my brothers and sisters in Israel, and my prayers for a sudden awakening, a epiphony (sic) of epic, no, biblical proportions that will snap them out of this ever quickening rush towards extinction.

"Kuffirs of the world, Unite!"
"Islam, abusing women and children since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at March 26, 2008 10:07 PM

Makes sense to me.
Every weapon has an identifying GPS marker.
And of course, every vehicle has the same and a cutoff switch.

If only my fantasy were true :(
Fatah/Hamas - Good Cop/Bad Cop: playing the West like a fiddle.

Posted by: Mike_W at March 27, 2008 2:49 AM

Old dog, new tricks. Is Barak educable?

--Hugh

----------------

Barak was on some type of speaking tour of the US a couple of years ago, and I attended a speech that he gave at a community college in my local area. Barak said that a two state solution is a must because a democracy cannot survive if an enormous proportion of its population rejects the very notion, and wants to kill and drive out the group in power. He left no doubt that the boundaries between the states should be defensible for Israel. Barak didn't want Israel to stay in the business of directly policing the asylum as it has for the past 40 years. I didn't take notes, and I didn't speak with him personally, but I do seem to think that he believed that it was better for the Arabs to police their own than to have the Israelis do it. Perhaps that is why he is "considering approving US plan to give Fatah weapons"--in the hopes that Fatah puts Hamas under its thumb.

That reasoning likely is based on the premiss that Fatah lost control of its areas to Hamas for want of firepower. Therefore, more weapons will solve this.

I don't know too much though.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at March 27, 2008 3:03 AM

I don't know too much though.

Posted by: Hyman Roth

Exactly right.
Read a few of the essays by Hugh or Robert at the top there, Hyman.

Unbelievable.

Posted by: Mike_W at March 27, 2008 3:36 AM

Well, Mike_W, do you know what Ehud Barak is thinking? Is there a reason that you insult me? I suspect it's because you mis-interpreted what I wrote as some sort of apologetic for arming a rabble of angry Muslims--but that would mean that you have a difficult time reading plain English to not understand that I was attempting to recall what I thought Barak believed based on what I heard him say, but did not specifically record.

There is a difference between agreeing with what somebody says and attempting to describe what they have said in order to formulate a hypothesis as to why they are behaving in a particular manner.

It is very likely that Robert, Hugh, and therefore, Mike_W, know more about how to manage Israel's security, or at least have a more accurate sense of the nature of Israel's enemies, than Ehud Barak and that Barak's (potentially pending) mis-step in regards to arming Fatah is therefore the result of faulty reasoning at some level. However, it is very likely not due to moral cowardice, a love affair with oily sheiks, or some Pollyanna syndrome. Nobody here knows. My hunch is that Barak is veering towards Charybdis because he just scraped his backside against Scylla.

What do you know about this, Mike_W, besides knowing how to repeat what I said about myself that I don't really know either? When you find an essay somewhere which tells you what you know, please report back because, well, I just must know.

xo
Hyman Roth

Posted by: Hyman Roth at March 27, 2008 4:59 AM

It is possible to be both a brave soldier and also miss the point. Ariel Sharon is one example. He formed, and led, Unit 101, that in daring night-time raids put paid to Arab terrorists infiltrating from Jordan. He spent decades as a soldier, a "permanent revolutionary." He thought, just the way Dayan and others have thought, that he "knew the Arabs" and "how to deal with them." But did he? In the end, weary of it all, and still not aware of Islam -- I wonder if those who have picked up the attitudes of Muslims realize that this is not all some accident, or some reflection of a primitive mind-set that will, with an end to "poverty" or "a state of their own" simply disappear. It is comforting to think so. Wouldn't it be nice? It certainly is the idea that animates the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq. Bring in the Good Government boys, repair or rebuild or build the whole country, don't ask the Iraqis to do anything much for themselves, and certainly don't ask them to pay for anything themselves (they now have $100 billion in oil money that they are not spending -- they prefer that we spend American money -- but keeping as a rainy day fund, because as we all know it rains so often in the oil-rich Middle East). It's no different with some Israelis.

The usual defense of those Israeli generals who demonstrate geopolitical foolishness is to deny it, and to say that the mere fact that they have been officers means they couldn't possibly be naive as to policies. Remember how often Safire, and others, would refer to Rabin as "that old warrior"? The implication was, of course that Rabin, "that old warrior," was tough, tough-minded, tough tough tough (god, how people love that adjective, without relating it to reality), because, you see, he was a general. Well, there are generals and generals. Some are actuely aware of matters other than mere making war on the battlefield, some are not. Some have a very long view, and some have the view akin to that of those executives worried about this quarter's performance, but not that next year, or for the next ten years. And statesmen, rather than politicians locked into an election cycle, must think ahead. When it comes to Islam, very far ahead -- and very far back.

That Barak shows no signs of having done, or doing.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2008 10:40 AM

Maybe Barak is simply being forced to do something he disagrees with by the rest of the government. Sometimes ex soldiers are just conditioned to obey and keep their personal opinions out of the equation.

Posted by: Dumbo at March 27, 2008 10:53 AM

Why on earth does the Israeli leadership have this strange fetish for arming their enemies? Did Britain or the US drop weapons caches over Nazi Germany during World War II? Somehow, I don't think so.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 27, 2008 12:22 PM

Without joining in the punchup on the wisdom of supplying arms to Fatah, it seems to me that any foreign aid would be better spent on improving the ability of the pals to actually make a living, grow food, get an education (other than the Intifada one they seem to be getting now).
If the prevailing wisdom is to contain Hamas, what's the attraction to Fatah, for people living in the crappy conditions they've largely created for themselves? Yeah, I know, the destruction of the gift greenhouses doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence that anything different would happen with any other helping hand...

Posted by: DaninVan at March 27, 2008 12:30 PM

Without joining in the punchup on the wisdom of supplying arms to Fatah, it seems to me that any foreign aid would be better spent on improving the ability of the pals to actually make a living, grow food, get an education (other than the Intifada one they seem to be getting now).

They've had billions in foreign aid, and were left greenhouses for growing food. But instead they looted those greenhouses and dug tunnels from those same greenhouses into Israel and used them to smuggle terrorists, guns and explosives. If anything, no more aid should go to those murderous parasites. Enough is enough.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at March 27, 2008 12:35 PM

it sounds to me like this man wants to commit suicide you must know that these weapons are going to be used again as his country no matter what the Palestinians say

Posted by: crusader at March 27, 2008 12:46 PM

DaninVan,

When you want a healthy economy, more useful education and a higher quality of housing for Palestinians more than they want it for themselves, your aid is bound to yield nothing positive.

From a Western point of view, it is logical to want a peaceful, healthy and prosperous life more than war, hatred and death. From the Muslim point of view, jihad is far more important an endeavor than keeping the streets clean or growing vitamin-rich crops.

In fact, many in the Arab community believe that Western aid is just a trick to get them to abandon jihad. The see it as a sign of weakness. In their mindset, if jihad (including terrorism) wasn't working, why would the West need to buy them off with foreign aid and peace processes that lead to territorial gains.

And they aren't entirely wrong! Few people in North America and Europe spend much time agonizing over the plight of poor people throughout Latin America, sub-saharan Africa or Asia. Yet many of the same folks feel it is urgent to improve the living conditions of the Palestinians, who receive far more aid and have a higher living standard than many in the third world.

I suspect fear of terrorism, desire for Arab oil and access to economic markets controlled by the Palestinians' fellow Arabs and Muslims moves much of this concern for their welfare. So does a hypocritical strain of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism that causes guilty Westerners to project their distaste for their own nations' sins onto the Israelis who are the grandchildren of those persecuted by both European and Muslim imperialists.

But most of all, sympathy for the Palestinians may be due to the fact that they won the enemy lottery. I'm sure if the Bahai's in Iran or the Aborigines of Australia could claim they were being victimized by the Jews--along with adding some anti-Americanism to their "narrative", their cause would become as fashionable as that of the Palestinians.

Posted by: 4infidels at March 27, 2008 1:07 PM

4infidels makes a very good point; where's the West's empathy for Bahai expressed in concrete terms?...or ANY terms, for that matter?

Posted by: DaninVan at March 27, 2008 2:13 PM

Sharon, as brilliant a tactician of war as there was, made many blunders. The withdrawl from Gaza was a case in point. He wasn't planning a war in this regard, so his years of experience were no where to be called on. The withdrawl from Gaza was based on phony population statistics from the bullfrog "Palestinian" sources on demographic counts. They were taken as accurate, which later proved false. They weren't questioned by Sharon, and policy based on those fake stats were set. The pull out was said it would alleviate the strain on the IDF from protecting the Israeli settlements. Later shown that those very settlements were actually safe zones that the IDF could act and react from on a moments notice. They were so sure the pull out would win over world support, as if the world would suddenly see the "Palestinian" menace as they are. Has that pull out from Gaza won over the world? Hardly, considering they're still looked upon as occupiers, that move has failed also.

Being "tough" or a military expert, or a soldier, doesn't make one qualified for such positions. Will John McCain "get it" if he ever took office because he was in the army and was tortured? Would John Kerry and his purple hearts qualify him to be President?

Ehud Barak, continues his absurd policies, continued from his Lebanon withdrawl in 2000 which laid the ground for today's Hizballah on Israelis northern front. His peace offer to Arafat back in 2000 is the basis that the "Palestinians" want to resume their peace negotiations on. He's now going to bring in US trained Jihadists from Jordan to look after Jenin, 600 of them? And they will pass on their expertise to whom? While this happens, Barak is actually contemplating allowing the eager Americans to transfer yet more weapons to the Martyrs Brigades.

Serving in the military, being "tough" has shown to mean very little.

Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at March 27, 2008 4:01 PM

"Without joining in the punchup on the wisdom of supplying arms to Fatah, it seems to me that any foreign aid would be better spent on improving the ability of the pals to actually make a living, grow food, get an education (other than the Intifada one they seem to be getting now)."
-- from a posting above

Why should a subset of the vast Arab people, endowed with the greatest unearned wealth, the wealth that comes, without any effort, from those oil deposits, be subsidized with more billions of aid, aid from the Infidels who have alraedy transferred some ten trillion dollars to the Muslim oil states since 1973 alone? Why? Why do "Palestinians" desereve to be the recipients of such aid, and not the genuinely poor, in sub-Saharan Africa, in Latin America, in parts of Asia? Are not Hindus in rural India, or Indians in rural Latin America, or black Africans in places constantly threatened with famine, more worthy recipients of international aid than the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel, busily inculcating in their own children a hysteical hate that hasn't been seen since the days of Adolf Hitler?

Why should anyone in the Western world allow these local Arabs, who breed and overbreed -- do you, does everyone you know, have ten children? Do you feel obliged to support those who keep having ten or a dozen children, and do so as a means of demographic conquest, and show no signs of stopping, because those overbreeders are convinced that the Infidels will take care of them, no matter what?

What entitles the "Palestinian" Arabs to live far better, say, not only than those Andean peasants and black Africans and impoverished Hindus in Calcutta, but better even than other Arabs in the states without oil? When the "Palestinians" broke through to Egypt, they discovered that the Egyptians in Gaza lived much more impoverished existences than they, those "Palestinians," in those cities that the media keep calling "refugee camps" -- but when was the last time that a real refugee camp had hairdressers, and electronic goods of everykind, and even DVD stores? Does that sound like a "refugee camp"?

Gaza, and the "Palestinian"-occupied or Arab-occuped areas of the "West Bank" -- that is, of Judea and Samaria -- are not, and never will be, economicaly self-sustaining. They are not now, and they will not be with a further increase in the Arab population. Nothing should be done to make the Arabs think they can breed indefinitely, and keep being supported. Let them leave, slowly or rapidly, and see if they can have productive lives -- lives not committed to murder -- elsewhere. Or let them remain bottled up. Or let them be on the permanent dole of the fabulously rich Arabs elsewhere. But not a cent should come from Infidels. We need the money. For energy projects. For increased monitoring of Muslim populations. For increases in security needs of all kinds, because of, thanks to, Islam, Islam, Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2008 5:11 PM

Hugh, I don't disagree with the 'enough already concept', the gripe I had was with the fueling of the fire rather than putting it out.
The main obstacle is the lack of coherent government on the pals side. Without it, all the welfare in the world isn't going to help the situation. The Bronze Age mentality, on the Arab side, (and that's probably giving too much credit)is simply incompatible with any modern economic solution...including statehood.
I'm reminded of Shriners parades with ebullient Shriners throwing handfuls of candies into the crowd; no particular target involved but at the end of the parade the candy sack is empty.

Posted by: DaninVan at March 27, 2008 7:12 PM

Whenever I have said to people that the Saudis and other wealthy Arabs--given the huge sums of money they spend building mosques and madrassas and promoting and funding jihad all over the world--should be the ones providing the aid to the Palestinians, I've never once had anyone disagree, regardless of their political leanings. Not only does everyone seem to follow the logic of this idea, they all act like I made some great discovery that no one had ever dreamed possible.

Funny, I just tell them that it takes a few minutes each day to check out jihad watch, read some of the postings by Robert, Hugh and others and you will see lots of common sense ideas that rarely, if ever, find voice in the mainstream media, on college campuses or in the position papers put forth by political candidates.

However when it comes to other aspects of Islam, jihad and the Middle East, people often listen, attempt to argue, before conceding that I know what I'm talking about, have studied the history of the region and read many books on Islam. They admit they can't refute the points I make. But ultimately at the end of the conversation, I usually hear people say things like "I understand what you say, but I just can't believe many millions of Muslims really believe what you say they do." Or, "I know Israel is in the right in most cases, but I still believe in peace. If I agree with you, then the situation is hopeless and their is no solution."

Yet that is reality whether we like it or not. Muslims believe it is their duty to wage jihad against infidels. They don't necessarily want the same things Westerners want. All religions at their core do not have the same values. And there is no solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict other than peace (or relative calm) maintained by Israel's military superiority over its enemies.

So many assumption are hardwired into Americans' DNA that most people have a hard time accepting reality as Jihad Watch so perfectly explains it. And that is before political correctness mandates they keep any negative views of Islam to themselves lest they find themselves an outcast at work, school or social events.

Heck, I'm looking for a new job. You don't think, given the background checks that companies perform these days, I can afford to use my real name here, do you?

Posted by: 4infidels at March 27, 2008 7:28 PM

"I know Israel is in the right in most cases, but I still believe in peace. If I agree with you, then the situation is hopeless and their is no solution."
-- a poster above, quoting--with some exasperation-- friends who accept what he says about Islam but cannot allow themselves to apply that knowledge to the Lesser Jihad against Israel

Tell them this:

1) Not everything is a "problem" that has a "solution."

2) Some things have no "solution" but are situations that can be managed.

3) The Muslim Arab Jihad, the world-wide Jihad, cannot be "solved" but it can be managed.

4) Local or Lesser Jihads can also not be "solved" but can be managed.

5) If Israel does not confuse "peace" with a "peace treaty" (which will assuredly weaken Israel and so make war more likely), and stops seeking a "solution" or allowing the Americans in office to keep believing naively in such a "solution," then it can survive. It needs to remain not merely stronger than the Arabs, but overwhelmingly and obviously so, so that they will get no ideas. For if and when they think an attack might succeed, or might at least lead to a further weakening of Israel's position, they will attack. Why shouldn't they? The removal of Israel, an Infidel nation-state, remains a permanent goal. It is prompted by Islam. Won't Muslims, if they are good Muslims, listen to the promptings, the texts and tenets, of Islam? Yes, they will.

6) The peace between Israel and the Arabs is a result not of any hudaibiyyah-like agreement, but only of Israel's strength. That strength requires that Israel not surrender any more territory, not surrender control of the "West Bank" but move still more Jews into the area and to do what should have been done in the summer of 1967: announce that that's it, this territory, which was assigned by the Mandates Commission, in setting up the Mandate for Palestine, to the land set aside for the establishment of the Jewish National Home, will be reclaimed, now that what the Jordanians seized illegitimately in 1948-49 has been won back, for the state of Israel, as the rightful and intended successor to Mandatory Palestine.

End of story.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2008 8:07 PM

You have to remember Hamas already grabbed loads of weapons and money and intel, too, when they overran Fatah's positions last summer. (During one of those short bursts of "we hate each other more than we hate Israel" that overtake them every so often...)

I guess our theory is we want both sides to sell enough arms on the black market that the leaders of both Hamas and Fatah will be able to leave their widows with a few hundred millions (just like Arafat left his wife. Suha had enough money -along with Yassir's medical reports, chuckle- to bribe her way out of Paleostan. But she went to -Tunisia? Supposedly married the president's brother-in-law, then last August was stripped of Tunisian citizenship and thrown out of the country. Wonder if she got to keep her money, or if it stayed behind in Tunis?)

Why give arms to those who hate us (and Israel) and wouldn't hesitate to use them against us (and Israel)? ... And why sell advanced fighter jets to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? (Well, I guess our munitions factories need to sell to somebody... this way we keep the old assembly lines humming along, and upper-level management types get to award themselves bonuses for "growing the business", eh?)

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 27, 2008 11:06 PM

OK, Barak is prone to error regardless of his military expertise. It appears as though he believes the slow jihad to be more manageable than the fast one, which is likely true. However, the folly lies in the notion that the slow jihad needs to be strengthened.

Posted by: Hyman Roth at March 28, 2008 3:05 PM

Ehud Barak? ...oh, wrong Barak... I thought this was Barack Obama we were discussing. The sentiment would then be more appropriate in my mind.

Land for peace, peaceful religions being highjacked, etc. We always try to believe these leaders know something that we do not whenever these idiotic ideas are expressed, or that there is some secret agenda in the planning.

News: No plan.

Appeasement, land, aid, political recognition of terrorists = more terror.

I ask for an example of when this has never been the case.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at March 28, 2008 3:55 PM

Why am I NOT surprised by this?

Would your “church,” if you fellowship with one, put on it’s bulletin board hateful articles from the anti-semitic, terrorist group Hamas? Barack Obama’s CURRENT church, Trinity United Church of Christ, did just that.

We just found out in the last 48 hours that Wright, while giving a eulogy in 2007, said that “(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him… The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”

Now comes a report by NBC News that while Wright was in charge at Obama’s CURRENT church, reprinted anti-Israel writings, including one column by none other than Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, appeared on the bulletin board there.

The column by the Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, asked: “Why should any Palestinian recognise the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel’s founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?”

The question becomes one of judgment, character, integrity, honesty and intelligence.

If I were to believe Obama’s defense that he didn’t, and still doesn’t, know what was, and still is, going on at his church for 20 years, then, in my opinion, he must not be very observant nor intelligent, and does not possess sensible judgement. Therefore he cannot be qualified to be the POTUS, in my opinion. If I do NOT believe Obama, then his integrity, character and honesty is woefully insufficient to be the POTUS, in my opinion.

Obama went to Harvard Law School (they don’t let just anybody in), where he became the first African-American president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1991. Now do you think he is NOT aware of what his church and ex-pastor are all about? Be AFRAID! Be VERY AFRAID!

Barack Obama’s political FRAUD against the American People continues…

Read the rest of this article here...
http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/barack-obama-reverend-wright-trinity-united-church-of-christ-and-hamas/

Posted by: Denny at March 28, 2008 6:19 PM

Any weapons give to Fatah should be technically modified so that when pointed in Israel's direction they backfire.

Posted by: Dsinc at March 29, 2008 3:19 AM